> > Let's not shift the burden of proof here. > > I'm not. I'm saying they can't prove it and you > can't disprove it, so it's a draw. It doesn't make > sense to use the accounts of Jesus's miracles as > "evidence" of any kind, nor does it make any sense > to demand proof of these miracles.
But this is how Christians use the Bible's claims, as evidence that it gives special instructions for how the world actually operates. Of course it all becomes moot when they default to faith after the evidence angle peters out. But I don't think Christians are being honest about how they do attempt to use evidence to influence belief. > But it's entirely mundane and can easily be > tested. I'm talking about mystical experience. OK, then the topic has shifted from the specific claims of an "experience" of having had past lives. I think I would have to have some specific examples to understand what kind you are talking about. > > The example he likes is that God gave us this > > real estate and you and your clan need to hit > > the road. > > That isn't the product of an *experience*; it says > so in da Bible. It's externally acquired. I don't know if there are mystical claims of God's messages about real estate among the Rabbis and Mullahs in the Mid East, or if it is all based on da book. I think some of the factions of Islam are based on the prophetic visions of their founders aren't they? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > I'm not sure about that. For Reincarnation they > > > > are making specific claims about having memories > > > > of what actually existed in the world when they > > > > were alive before. > > > > > > And how can you prove or disprove that they have > > > such memories? You can't get inside their heads > > > to see whether the memories are there. (Two > > > different points here: whether they have the > > > memory is one; whether it's a memory of what > > > actually happened is another.) > > > > I wasn't thinking that this question is the most > > relevant to the claim. I'm not trying to > > distinguish someones memory from their imagination. > > I know. I'm really just making a semantic quibble > because sometimes this type of distinction gets lost > and creates misunderstanding. "Specific claims that > their memories are of what actually existed in the > world" would be clearer. > > <snip> > > > > So in principle they can be tested. We > > > > may not know what happens after death, but if > > > > someone claims that they DO know because they > > > > can remember specifics of having lived before > > > > it can be tested. > > > > > > But you can't prove or disprove that this has > > > anything to do with reincarnation. > > > > I'm not so sure. If a lot of people had these > > experiences in compelling detail we might be able > > to establish it. At least we could up the > > probability of it being true. > > Probability, perhaps. But we couldn't rule out > other possibilities. > > > > They are > > > > going beyond describing a place after death. > > > > So challenging their assertions with a request > > > > for proof seems reasonable to me. If you look > > > > at Christian beliefs based on the New Testament's > > > > claims, we do see an attempt for an evidence > > > > system based on the Jesus miracles. > > > > > > Which can't be proved or disproved either. > > > > Let's not shift the burden of proof here. > > I'm not. I'm saying they can't prove it and you > can't disprove it, so it's a draw. It doesn't make > sense to use the accounts of Jesus's miracles as > "evidence" of any kind, nor does it make any sense > to demand proof of these miracles. > > It isn't up to me to disprove it. The person > > making the claim makes their case and we can > > decide if we find their reasons compelling. We > > have proven a lot of things about historical > > figures with a pretty good degree of confidence. > > The Jesus myth just isn't one of them for me. > > Jesus is really only quasi-historical. There's > almost nothing in the way of contemporary evidence > even for his existence, let alone his deeds or what > he said. > > <snip> > > > > > So it seems to me there's an element operating > > > > > in this situation that doesn't exist with > > > > > externally acquired beliefs, one that isn't > > > > > subject to examination or analysis, at least in > > > > > anything like the same way as with externally > > > > > acquired beliefs. > > > > > > > > It seems the same to me. Lets take the beliefs > > > > of an OCD person who KNOWS that if they don't > > > > turn the light off and on 3 times something bad > > > > will happen. > > > > > > Nah, that's a bogus example. > > > > I don't see why,it is an internally created > > reality for the person without any external > > support. > > But it's entirely mundane and can easily be > tested. I'm talking about mystical experience. > > <snip> > > > > I think this is Sam Harris's main point. That we > > > > don't have to give a pers> > > > cross the threshold of talking about their meaning.on a pass on claims just > > > > because they came from an inner source once they > > > > > > Depends on *what they say* about the experiences' > > > meaning. It isn't a one-size-fits-all situation. > > > > The example he likes is that God gave us this > > real estate and you and your clan need to hit > > the road. > > That isn't the product of an *experience*; it says > so in da Bible. It's externally acquired. >
